You'll want to pick your analogies carefully, because burning garbage for energy when the alternative is a US style landfill is literally better in every way. But let's not strawman: first mover advantage is very real, but it's been literal decades of competition, and plenty of folks moved off of MS products. Hundreds of millions, however, have not. And still voluntarily install them. Because for them, they work the vast majority of the time, and don't cause any more gripes than Apple or Linux do for others.
That's the thing though, burning coal works fine as well and doesn't cause any more gripes than hydroelectric or solar. Without voluntary moves to other products, or regulatory changes, it would have taken likely much longer before we stopped doing it. It's not an exact analogy, but there are parallels – the linked article is suggesting voluntarily stepping away from Microsoft code hosting, and others in the thread have suggested regulatory controls.
> because burning garbage for energy when the alternative is a US style landfill is literally better in every way.
Now that you say it, I do remember reading that Sweden burns garbage for energy. I would have thought that the main problem would be arbitrary emissions from the plant, but from the plan of a typical one, those are trapped and/or filtered [1]. I still think that in the US this would be harder, since people are probably prone to throwing more things in the garbage than they should; and don't recycle as much as the Swedes do.
Indeed. A number of other places in Europe looked at the economics of landfills and went "yeah: no. Even with the cost of gas filters, literally burning garbage for energy is cheaper and more environmentally friendly than making a time bomb by burying it".
